Month: June 2012

Was much smaller than this chart suggests.

Ketchum, Idaho, 3.15 pm

It probably isn't the first time a 3 am college discussion veers on to the same territory that Jim Behrle shares here. It's very funny. But it also has a serious point. Here is an actual serious critique of the current orthodoxies in natural law with respect to sex. Now remember that natural law posits that anyone can glean the divine purpose of our bodies from simple reflection on what nature has created. Hence the notion that sex is only for procreation, and any sex not designed to make babies is against our nature and God's will. Obvious innit? And yet:

If sex was merely about procreating, why is it so hard for some people to get pregnant? Some animals have, like, barbed penises that don’t release themselves from vaginas without ejaculating a million times directly inside to make sure that the job gets done. Humans have soft tiny unbarbed penises. That come really fast and then make us nap. At least in my experience. And I have never impregnated anyone! I made a giant list of all the people I have had sex with and it was depressing. And none of those people had any babies because of me. This seems like a giant waste of evolutionary effort.

Also, I have heard about this thing called the female g-spot. Have you heard of this thing? And the clitoris. Have you ever found that? I have never found it. But apparently it is, wait for it, outside of the vagina. That seems like an awfully stupid place to put it if sex was only meant to feel good through intercourse that makes babies. Vibrators feel better than penises! And we don’t have lots of robot babies being born! Think about that.

Nipples also. Nipples. What is up with those?

Figuring out what is "natural" in nature from what is not "natural" turns out not to be that easy. But wouldn't things that make us feel pleasure be more natural than those that don't? I mean: Did God really give us all that capacity for orgasm on the condition that it only be experienced when actually creating another human being? It's like giving someone a water-cannon and demanding they only water a single house plant.

(By the way, "Clitoris, purpose of" is my favorite index note from The Conservative Soul. For a less stoned exploration of the arbitrary incoherence of "natural law" as it is currently embraced by the Catholic hierarchy, Chapter 2 may be of interest.)

Matthew Continetti decries Obama's use of celebrity endorsements:

The very idea of raffling off presidential dinners using celebrity videos is un-republican. The argument the video stars make is largely an argument from power: All the cool kids are supporting Obama, they imply, so you should, too. The contest, moreover, emphasizes luck over merit: Donate $3, and maybe, just maybe, you will be rewarded with a trip to the summit of Mount Olympus. Such a dubious prize exploits the inequalities of status and wealth that are at the heart of so much contemporary American anxiety.

All true if a little over-wrought. But nowhere does Continetti mention that Romney has employed the same tactic with Donald Trump. And he misses the more obvious question: "President Obama, how come a transvestite donkey witch is in your campaign Youtube and why is it wearing a dress?"

A prominent Pennsylvania Democrat switches parties and endorses Romney because of the president's support for marriage equality. Fair enough. She's entitled to her views and her choice of party. But what worries me is this:

"As the Democratic Party has taken the stand for same-sex marriage, then I must make a stand on my faith that marriage is between a man and a woman. God's principles for life never change. His guidelines, given in Scripture, produce fruitful lives when you follow them," Nardelli said while making the announcement of her party switch in the Blair County Courthouse.

There is not even a pretense at a secular argument. More to the point:

Monsignor Anthony Little of St. Patrick's Parish in Newry was with Nardelli during her announcement. He said Nardelli consulted him before making her decision. He said what Nardelli did "takes a lot of courage."

So a priest advises a political candidate to switch parties and appears at her side in a public announcement of a partisan switch. Where does this end?

PM Carpenter has reached his limit:

There no longer exists any doubt that Mitt Romney intends to win the White House by conducting the most dishonest, unscrupulous and reprehensible campaign ever devised, in mere whimsy. The unethical stench of this man is not only breathtaking, it's meteoric. I have never seen anything like it, never heard anything like it, never imagined anything like it.

Romney will run against a fictional Obama, and Fox will provide the cover, and unless Obama is able to change the frame of this debate, the relentless propaganda will be potent. Yes, the level of deception is so great it's breath-taking. But Romney, I'm increasingly inclined to believe, is a businessman all the way down. His ethics are about getting, as he put it, 50.1 percent of the vote in any state. He does not believe there are any ethical or principled reasons not to try and get to that 50.1 percent however he can. A businessman can compartmentalize core moral and political questions into marketing. The goal is 50.1 percent saturation.

So he marketed a bunch of policies when running in Massachusetts – blithely becoming pro-choice out of deep conviction and personal experience, implementing Obamacare on a state level as a centrist conservative, being "more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy" on discrimination.  But now he is not running in Massachusetts, he will simply change the policies. He favors a constitutional amendment criminalizing all abortion, total repeal of Obamacare, and will not stand by even a gay national security spoeksman if it means offending the religious right. This is who he "is". If a line will work against Obama, he will use it, regardless of its truth. Because there is no truth in Romney's world. There is only advertizing.

There is something increasingly chilling about this shape-shifter, isn't there? He views himself as a product to be marketed to different audiences at different times. And the actual content of that product is completely malleable. It can change as swiftly as Mormon doctrine, when market share is at stake. To predict Romney, in other words, you simply have to merely examine the market he's selling to.

As I noted once before, he doesn't just believe that corporations are people; he is a walking corporation masquerading as a person.

Your single-serving tumblr of the day.

Allahpundit analyzes Rand Paul's endorsement of Romney:

[Rand Paul] won’t be on the ticket, but his endorsement is important in (hopefully) keeping Paul’s legions inside the tent in November. And it’s important to Rand too, of course, insofar as it means he’s a lock to speak at the convention now and can introduce himself to the country in anticipation of a future run. If you were worried about some sort of floor revolt among Paul-supporting delegates in Tampa, you probably don’t have to worry anymore.

Damn. That would have been fun.

Readers keep the popular thread moving:

Do not forget Jonathan Swift, who wrote in Chapter VI of Gulliver's Travels: "Men are never so serious, thoughtful, and intent as when they are at stool."

Another:

From James Boswell's journal (Boswell in Holland): "Tuesday 11 October [1763].  From this day follow Mr. Locke's prescription of going to stool every day regularly after breakfast.  It will do your health good, and it is highly necessary to take care of your health." The reference to Locke is from Some Thoughts Concerning Education, Section 24 ("… if a man, after his first eating in the morning, would presently solicit nature, and try whether he could strain himself so as to obtain a stool, he might in time, by constant application, bring it to be habitual.").

That's why I have a picture of John Locke in my bathroom!

Weirdo. (Just kidding!) Another:

If you're quoting Auden's bowel movement poetry you really should have Updike's too! "The Beautiful Bowel Movement" by John Updike:

Though most of them aren’t much to write about—
mere squibs and nubs, like half-smoked pale cigars,
the tint and stink recalling Tuesday’s meal,
the texture loose and soon dissolved—this one,
struck off in solitude one afternoon
(that prairie stretch before the late light fails)
with no distinct sensation, sweet or pained,
of special inspiration or release,
was yet a masterpiece: a flawless coil,
unbroken, in the bowl, as if a potter
who worked in this most frail, least grateful clay
had set himself to shape a topaz vase.
O spiral perfection, not seashell nor
stardust, how can I keep you? With this poem.

Another calls me out:

There's something surreal about seeing you say that we should talk more seriously about pooping shortly after you ridiculed Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek for doing just that. Zizek is ridiculous for many reasons, but the fact that he pointed out a truth of today's society – that we don't think about what happens to our shit once we've flushed the toilet – is not really one of them.

Ouch. But it's not the subject, it's the mountain of pretension he brings to the dunghill. Another:

As long as you are on the subject, I thought I would bring your attention to the classic "Captain Underpants" series by Dav Pilkey. Consider this passage from "Captain Underpants and the Preposterous Plight of the Purple Potty People":

Most adults spend the first few years of a child's life cheerfully discussing pee and poopies and how important it is to learn to put your pee-pee and poo-poo in the potty like big people do. But once children have mastered the art of toilet training, they are immediately forbidden to ever talk about poop, pee, toilets, and other bathroom related subjects ever again.  Such things are suddenly considered rude and vulgar, and are no longer rewarded with praise and cookies and juice boxes. One day you are a superstar because you pooped in the toilet like a big boy, and the next day you are sitting in the principal's office because you used the word "poopy" in American history class (which if you ask me is the perfect place to say that word).

You are probably wondering, "Why would adults do that?  Why would they encourage something one day and discourage it the next?" The only answer I can think of is that adults are totally bonkers and should be avoided at all times.

(Photo of Rodin's statue by Brian Hillegas)